Surface 3/RT Moving Forward

[Cruncher04]

Isn't the point of threshold to make ONE APP rule all form form factors(UI) and processors(x86/64 and arm)?

Not really. The UI paradigms for touch and k/m are just very different. If you would take say Office touch for iPad and would use it on a device with k/m, you would be utterly disappointed. The same applies vice versa.
For example when i connect my Surface 2 to a Monitor+Keyboard+Mouse i always use IE Desktop, while on the go i use Metro IE. Note that both versions use the same codebase, which runs under Win32/Desktop subsystem. Only a small part of IE runs natively under WinRT. Google Chrome is doing the same by the way. As i mentioned already in another post, the WinRT sandbox is much too restricted to develop a browser.

BTW, since we're discussing the capabilities of Windows RT I'd also like to address another bone-headed decision of Microsoft - the name chosen for the OS (and I'm not even talking of the WinRT/Windows RT fiasco).

I would just have called it Windows or Windows on ARM, because thats what it is. No other OS in history has the target architecture as part of ist name. Linux is just Linux for all architectures. Same applies to Android, Windows NT3.xx (available for MIPS, Alpha, x86), VxWorks, ThreadX, BSD, Solaris, QNX etc.
There are actually more misconceptions regarding Windows RT due to the suffix RT as if they just had called it Windows. This very thread should be proof enough.

Just how many people returned their devices because they expected a Windows tablet to be fully capable of running their favourite Windows apps (including alternate browsers and the like), and then were bitterly disappointed when they found out this wasn't possible?

I guess not many. I dont know of any even though i regulary read Surface related message boards and Internet sites. All i ever noticed regarding this is hearsay. More interestingly is, that this argument is mostly brought up by people who understand the difference quite well.

Just because it's capable at this point doesn't mean it was their design plan. If Office had been touch, there likely wouldn't have been a desktop on Windows RT. It was there out of necessity, not out of design.

You still dont get it. Windows is Microsofts designated OS for tablets. There will be no separate OS for tablets. That IS the design plan.
Microsoft said this on several occasions very clearly and it makes much more sense, than assuming they are lazy.
This has absolutely nothing to do with Office.

 

[DoctorSaline]

It's my understanding that UIs are just an overlays. Rearrangement of elements of sorts. Different feel and different looks. OEMs have been changing the looks and feel of android since forever. My question is can't they put two or three UIs on top of the base code and depending on the mode app is being opened in, it just presents itself in that UI. Also while switching between tablet to desktop mode, it may transform/metamorph itself into appropriate UI. I mean is this possible or people with hybrid OS are stuck with two different versions of everything?

Internet Explorer on WinRT is a biggest pain in the ****. I don't know what Microsoft wants to achieve with forcing users to either use IE or to use some other browser based on IE itself which sort of defeats the purpose.

Comparing the quality of apps between WP and iOS, it is evident how immature WinRT APIs are right now not to mention so many restrictions which are coming in way of functionality. I hope MS just give in already, I mean they were already late to the game just how many more years are they going to take to streamline/polish it?

Okay, this might be irrelevant but recently announced tegraK1 chromebook by Acer was really making news yesterday. With its touted battery life of 13 hours and generally cheap price points with ability to run native android apps later in 2014 and productivity software providers like adobe increasingly adopting software as a service model(creative cloud), does that pose a threat to Windows PCs? Google is slowly pushing the war on MS' turf and it will be interesting to see how MS answers that. I mean Windows RT in its unrestricted full potential is certainly capable of tackling these attacks by google.

 

[RajeevT]

But there are rumors that they are planning to run modern apps in window mode in desktop.

Yeah, so? They would still be Modern (or Metro - why can't MS get its names right?) apps that would be restricted to using the WinRT API. Just because they now run in a window instead of always full-screen doesn't change that in any way, nor does it make it easier to convert traditional desktop apps into Metro ones.

I would just have called it Windows or Windows on ARM, because thats what it is. No other OS in history has the target architecture as part of ist name. Linux is just Linux for all architectures. Same applies to Android, Windows NT3.xx (available for MIPS, Alpha, x86), VxWorks, ThreadX, BSD, Solaris, QNX etc.
...
I guess not many. I dont know of any even though i regulary read Surface related message boards and Internet sites. All i ever noticed regarding this is hearsay.

Don't think those names would have helped in the least. No other OS in history probably has had the uptake that Windows has, and one can easily argue that the target audience for the more, shall we say "niche", OSes has generally been IT-savvy people. Unlike you, I have come across lots of people who had/have no idea that Windows RT can't run third party desktop apps in general or "normal" (non .NET) x86/x64 Windows apps in particular, and a fair number who returned their Surface RT/2s due to buyer's remorse or after realising their mistake.

 

[DoctorSaline]

Yeah, so? They would still be Modern (or Metro - why can't MS get its names right?) apps that would be restricted to using the WinRT API. Just because they now run in a window instead of always full-screen doesn't change that in any way, nor does it make it easier to convert traditional desktop apps into Metro ones.

I realize what you mean. I was only emphasizing the need to go through it(though less restrictions would be better if that helps we can actually get an app). One word: UNIFORMITY. Or we can always go back to dealing with cluttered experiences on our Intel laptops.

 

[RajeevT]

I realize what you mean. I was only emphasizing the need to go through it(though less restrictions would be better if that helps we can actually get an app). One word: UNIFORMITY. Or we can always go back to dealing with cluttered experiences on our Intel laptops.

Well the UI would need to be tailored to the type of device obviously but more universal apps would definitely be appreciated. Only problem is many desktop apps will simply never have Metro equivalents because either WinRT doesn't allow it or the developer just isn't interested in investing the amount of time, energy and money required. That is where if MS lifted its restrictions we would have the possibility of seeing at least recompiled desktop apps which otherwise would remain forever inaccessible on the platform.

 

[Cruncher04]

Don't think those names would have helped in the least. No other OS in history probably has had the uptake that Windows has, and one can easily argue that the target audience for the more, shall we say "niche", OSes has generally been IT-savvy people.

Depends on what it would have helped for. The current naming implies that Windows RT is something fundamentally different. I came across many people who even think Windows RT has it's own development line and can therefore be merged with Windows Phone independently of Windows. The message boards are practically full of people which similar misunderstandings. The root cause for this issue is giving the same thing a different name, which is unprecendented in OS history.
Your uptake argument does not fly very far. Android has a similar uptake still there is no need to call something Android RT. I personally know a few people who returned their Android x86 device due to incompatibilities. But i would never step up and claim, that there is a serious issue. In both cases Android and Windows, there is a small minority of people unhappy with their decision, because they were just ill-informed.
The whole thing is blown totally out of proportion by the main stream media and then nicely mixed with lack of understanding. My thesis is, that giving it a different name hurts more than in helps.

With its touted battery life of 13 hours and generally cheap price points with ability to run native android apps later in 2014 and productivity software providers like adobe increasingly adopting software as a service model(creative cloud), does that pose a threat to Windows PCs? Google is slowly pushing the war on MS' turf and it will be interesting to see how MS answers that. I mean Windows RT in its unrestricted full potential is certainly capable of tackling these attacks by google.

Finally someone who comes to the point. It is abolutely necessary that Microsoft supports the ARM architecture with it's Windows products and not just a restricted experience. Instead of wasting resources, which develop options to dumb down Windows for ARM, they should rather fully support it. The combination of Chrome OS and Android also combines the desktop experience with the touch experience similar to Windows, albeit much restricted mind you?
The Tegra K1 currently is the most advanced mobile SoC in particular from performance/power point of view. Baytrail on the other hand is on the lower end of the spectrum. So Windows user in the future can choose between a superior SoC but a dumbed down experience and an inferior SoC and a full experience? And this should be the strategy Microsoft should follow by removing the desktop from Windows for ARM?

Only problem is many desktop apps will simply never have Metro equivalents because either WinRT doesn't allow it or the developer just isn't interested in investing the amount of time, energy and money required.

I would formulate it more drastic. There will not be Metro/Touch equivalents of programs once they exceed a threshold of complexity and features. Thats where the classical Desktop UI paradigms are a perfect match for. This applies to Android/iOS as well.

 

[RajeevT]

The root cause for this issue is giving the same thing a different name, which is unprecendented in OS history. Your uptake argument does not fly very far. Android has a similar uptake still there is no need to call something Android RT. I personally know a few people who returned their Android x86 device due to incompatibilities. But i would never step up and claim, that there is a serious issue.

Android app incompatibility has hardly been an issue of comparable scale because the people purchasing Android x86 devices are few and far between. For that matter I don't even know of any such device other than the Intel AZ510 (XOLO X900). And in any case Android apps are essentially Java apps that run in a VM, right? So no direct compiled-for-ARM code running anyway, reducing incompatibility even further. That's not the case with WOA where unless you have .NET IL code you will need to recompile to get the desktop app to work, but then will of course run into MS' certificate restriction.

The current naming implies that Windows RT is something fundamentally different.

I would argue that the restriction actually makes it so, even though fundamentally it is not. If the OS won't allow users to install and run desktop apps then it shouldn't be called Windows. Better to remove the desktop completely in that case instead of leaving it around and then locking it up, as if just to tease us with the possibilities. :unhappy:

I would love to have an unrestricted version of WOA available (that would deserve to be called Windows), but if that's not their plan they should rename the OS, retool it to remove all 'legacy' components and slim it down drastically and release the dumbed down version. At least that might appeal more to the masses than Windows RT has in its current neutered state.

I would formulate it more drastic. There will not be Metro/Touch equivalents of programs once they exceed a threshold of complexity and features. Thats where the classical Desktop UI paradigms are a perfect match for. This applies to Android/iOS as well.

Yes, I mentioned the UI challenges in a previous reply to DoctorSaline. I fully agree with you, a usable Metro/Touch app can only offer a pared down experience compared to its complex Desktop app equivalent. Unlike many others like Michael here I do believe there's a place for desktop apps even on a 10" ARM tablet, especially when a mouse is incorporated into the workflow.

 

[Cruncher04]

Android app incompatibility has hardly been an issue of comparable scale because the people purchasing Android x86 devices are few and far between.

I just argued, that the uptake argument is not valid. If the incompatibility issue is of comparable scale is a different question.

And in any case Android apps are essentially Java apps that run in a VM, right?

This does not apply to Android NDK apps.

At least that might appeal more to the masses than Windows RT has in its current neutered state.

Not really. I use the Desktop part of Windows on my Surface quite regular. And to be honest i do not need much more than Office, IE, Outlook and Powershell. There are some heavy-weight programs i run on my laptop, which i would not run on a tablet anyway. There are a few things i would like to have in addition on my tablet, like for instance a nice editor like Notepad++ or tool like Beyond Compare. But it is nothing major, which would push me towards x86 Windows versions.
If they remove the Desktop i would be instantly out of the game, most likely i would reconsider Android as Microsoft would not have any comparable Windows offering for ARM devices anymore. Or better yet Chrome OS + Android, where in some sense i would have a desktop again.
Keep in mind, that removing the desktop also means throwing multi-user capabilities, file-system capabilites, server capabilites, multi-screen capabilities etc. out. Thats of course if they not just disable the desktop but removing a significant chunk of the Win32 subsystem. I am certain IE with flash plugin would be gone as well. It cannot exist without the Win32 subsystem.
And then think of the development, integration, verification and maintenance resources Microsoft is wasting on such an abomination of a dumbed down OS, which only has disadvantages over just Windows for ARM.
Just to be clear, it would be very easy for Microsoft to remove the signature enforcement for desktop apps from Windows RT. So there is still hope. Either for Microsoft coming to senses or a jailbreak solution showing up.

 

[dj kg1]

Don't do it Microsoft are a joke from PC Phones all round rubbish

 

[Michael Alan Goff]

I just argued, that the uptake argument is not valid. If the incompatibility issue is of comparable scale is a different question.



This does not apply to Android NDK apps.



Not really. I use the Desktop part of Windows on my Surface quite regular. And to be honest i do not need much more than Office, IE, Outlook and Powershell. There are some heavy-weight programs i run on my laptop, which i would not run on a tablet anyway. There are a few things i would like to have in addition on my tablet, like for instance a nice editor like Notepad++ or tool like Beyond Compare. But it is nothing major, which would push me towards x86 Windows versions.
If they remove the Desktop i would be instantly out of the game, most likely i would reconsider Android as Microsoft would not have any comparable Windows offering for ARM devices anymore. Or better yet Chrome OS + Android, where in some sense i would have a desktop again.
Keep in mind, that removing the desktop also means throwing multi-user capabilities, file-system capabilites, server capabilites, multi-screen capabilities etc. out. Thats of course if they not just disable the desktop but removing a significant chunk of the Win32 subsystem. I am certain IE with flash plugin would be gone as well. It cannot exist without the Win32 subsystem.
And then think of the development, integration, verification and maintenance resources Microsoft is wasting on such an abomination of a dumbed down OS, which only has disadvantages over just Windows for ARM.
Just to be clear, it would be very easy for Microsoft to remove the signature enforcement for desktop apps from Windows RT. So there is still hope. Either for Microsoft coming to senses or a jailbreak solution showing up.

If they removed the desktop, they would be comparable to Android, iOS, and still better than Chromebooks.

Don't do it Microsoft are a joke from PC Phones all round rubbish

Why are you here?

 

[RajeevT]

If they remove the Desktop i would be instantly out of the game, most likely i would reconsider Android as Microsoft would not have any comparable Windows offering for ARM devices anymore. Or better yet Chrome OS + Android, where in some sense i would have a desktop again.

Keep in mind, that removing the desktop also means throwing multi-user capabilities, file-system capabilites, server capabilites, multi-screen capabilities etc. out. Thats of course if they not just disable the desktop but removing a significant chunk of the Win32 subsystem. I am certain IE with flash plugin would be gone as well. It cannot exist without the Win32 subsystem.
And then think of the development, integration, verification and maintenance resources Microsoft is wasting on such an abomination of a dumbed down OS, which only has disadvantages over just Windows for ARM.

Never gonna go anywhere near Chrome OS, you're welcome to it. Anyway I agree with you about the advantages of having an unrestricted ARM version of Windows, but note that when I talked about the appeal of a desktop-less version I was referring to the masses, who quite probably might prefer such an offering. I just wish MS would get off its fat *** and get its strategy right. Make up their mind about what form they want their mobile ARM OS to take. If we're sacrificing all that disk space we damn well better have the ability to use the OS to its fullest extent (choosing to do so or not is up to the individual user), otherwise they should clearly target the iOS loving crowd by giving them what they want. Not that the latter approach doesn't have obvious advantages too such as better stability and much better battery life by virtue of being lighter (= less capable), but if I wanted those trade-offs I wouldn't have bothered with RT in the first place.

Just to be clear, it would be very easy for Microsoft to remove the signature enforcement for desktop apps from Windows RT. So there is still hope. Either for Microsoft coming to senses or a jailbreak solution showing up.

I have more hope for the latter than the former, but given so much time has passed even the hope of a jailbreak has worn pretty thin. And no doubt if Windows RT 9.0 still sports a locked down desktop then MS will close down any 8.1 jailbreak like they did with the 8.0 one.

 

[Cutesy_Things]

i just purchased the pro 3 and i love it! its great for taking it to classes but knowing me, i tend to scratch up my devices so i got a skin for it from stickerboy and i love it! the skin looks great. i have previously ordered from them a couple of times so they gave me a discount code "decal" for 10% off my entire order. i honestly love the way this skin looks on my pro. atleast i dont have to worry about getting scratches on it now lol. just wanted to share the picture with everyone!

 

[rodan01]

The x86 mobile CPUs are too good to justify a WOA sku in the short term. The benefits of that product would be insignificant, although the confusion in the market would be huge.





A Windows laptop with ARM SOC that can't run most of the desktop apps because they aren't compiled for ARM would be a nightmare. A consumer wouldn't be happy if she can't run iTunes, Chrome or PhotoShop in her new laptop. What's the cost of explaining to a couple of billion of consumers the difference between architectures?





Microsoft has given some hints that they're unifying the platform on WinRT. That means adding UI components optimized for keyboard and mouse to develop desktop apps with WinR. Increasing the scope of the WinRT APIs to make possible a bigger number of apps. Probably some of those new APIs won't be available in the new merged mobile OS that replaces RT and WP.





So, the long term strategy to support ARM is WinRT, the long term strategy for Windows is WinRT. Win32 is legacy.

 

[RajeevT]

So, the long term strategy to support ARM is WinRT, the long term strategy for Windows is WinRT. Win32 is legacy.

Might be legacy but it's not going anywhere anytime soon, especially on desktops.

 

[Cruncher04]

The x86 mobile CPUs are too good to justify a WOA sku in the short term.

They are barely good enough. Moreover they do not provide enough options. If you want to have to notch GPU performance in your mobile device, you better not buy an Atom. Intel's advantages in technology are immediatly lost by the x86 microarchitecture. It is not a question of if but when the global foundries close the technology gap. It is important for Microsoft to make a long term investment into ARM and not just coming late to the party as usual for Microsoft. AArch64 is making leaps to close the gap even to core processors in performance.

So, the long term strategy to support ARM is WinRT, the long term strategy for Windows is WinRT. Win32 is legacy.

Certainly not. WinRT and its sandbox is much to restricted to run any system services are any advanced software like drivers. This comes on top of the fact that any touch centric UI is not particulary suitable to mouse/keayboard usage.

 

[Wendy Chamblee]

Unless the surface rt speeds up and windows store gets more apps the rt which I bought is limited. I wait for every page to load from internet apps in windows store about 170000 compared to 1m for ios or androids.

 

[Michael Alan Goff]

Unless the surface rt speeds up and windows store gets more apps the rt which I bought is limited. I wait for every page to load from internet apps in windows store about 170000 compared to 1m for ios or androids.

Why do people keep saying the Windows Store "needs more apps" as if having 1m means something? I mean, I could see somebody saying "it doesn't have the apps I need", but how many apps do you really think you're going to download on a tablet? And how many of those are you going to use with any frequency?

 

[colinkiama]

Why do people keep saying the Windows Store "needs more apps" as if having 1m means something? I mean, I could see somebody saying "it doesn't have the apps I need", but how many apps do you really think you're going to download on a tablet? And how many of those are you going to use with any frequency?

more apps mean you are more likely to find apps with the functionality you are looking for. Also apps that people may use on a regular basis on their other tablets might not be here.

 

[colinkiama]

Surface 3 needs to be the best consumer tablet ever made otherwise RT will be scrapped. Whether you like it or not.

 

[WillysJeepMan]

Why do people keep saying the Windows Store "needs more apps" as if having 1m means something? I mean, I could see somebody saying "it doesn't have the apps I need", but how many apps do you really think you're going to download on a tablet? And how many of those are you going to use with any frequency?

Because "it doesn't have the apps I need" is not sufficient to describe the situation either. It's not only about the "apps I need", but the "apps I want", and the "apps I'd like to try out to see if I want or need them". For example, no one "needs" Instagram, but when it was available for iOS but not for Android, Android users wanted to try it out, or to use it to connect with their friends and family who were using Instagram on iOS. That's just one example, there are many more.

I have 80 apps installed on my iPad 4. I use 50 of them regularly. When I owned a Surface RT and Surface 2, I initially looked for Windows versions of those apps. Very few existed. I then searched for apps that provided similar functions. I was a little more successful with that.

Although the Surface hardware is amazing, I was able to do only a fraction of what I do on the iPad on the Surface. That was solely a software issue.

Add to that the different ways that people use their devices, it is not sufficient to have only one quality app for a category.